2011 Archiveshttp://jibblescribbits.com/table/2011-articles/april/
Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:07:05 +0000Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Managementen-gbAn Irrational Narrativehttp://jibblescribbits.com/2011-articles/april/an-irrational-narrative.html
http://jibblescribbits.com/2011-articles/april/an-irrational-narrative.htmlI mean after that loss they were, apparently, totally in his head. The Blackhawks had shaken Luongo’s faith in his ability to it’s very core which is why he struggled out of the gate this season after that devastating playoff loss. In his first five games he had a Save % under .900 3 times capped by back to back losses against Los Angeles and Anaheim in which his save percentage was .789 and .667. Clearly this was a shaken goaltender with no confidence.

Luckily for Luongo after that bad stretch his next game against a team in which he could build his confidence back up because he had zero baggage with that opponent. His next game was against....The Chicago Blackhawks!?! And he saved 31/32 (.969) in an OT Loss.

AHA! Loss is the key word there. Clearly the Blackhawks were still in his head. He Lost. And proof they were in his head: he gave up 4 goals on 20 shots before being pulled in a 7-1 Loss. See Luongo lust had a mental block against the Blackhawks. And the ball of mush in his head couldn't handle these big bad Blackhawks anymore as evidenced by Luongo’s next start in which he.... was 1st star in a 32-save shutout.

Ahh, but that was regular season, and that doesn't count (even though that 7-1L and other loss somehow totally count). Also not counting: the 4-3 win in February in which he stopped 42/45. again: February. Once the playoffs came around we would all see how fragile Luongo was, especially that first game against his arch-nemesis. And sure enough in that first playoff game Luongo was battered by the Blackhawks to the tune of... a 32-save shutout. Oh and he’d follow that up with 2 more wins, in which he played well (23/26 .885, 31/32 .969) helping the Canucks get a 3-0 lead.

So after last years playoff defeats against the Blackhawks Luongo’s mental ooze was so battered and broken that the next 7 games against the Blackhawks he posted the Dan Cloutier-esque stat line of 5-1-1 .945 Sv% 2 SO (3 playoff wins).

You would think this would be enough to put to bed all the “Blackhawks own Luongo” nonsense, but you’d be a naïve fool. Of course the Blackhawks were just toying with him, purposely going down 3-0 in a playoff series just to torment poor Roberto. I mean they were the ultimate goalie tormentors, and they had the ultimate torment planned. So they battered him in game 4 and 5 to the tune of a .786 & .667 save percentage the next two games (which coincidentally look a ton like the .789 &.668 sv% he had against LA and ANH in October. But those teams don’t own him so it wasn’t important).

Take 1: Raffi Torres targeted an unsuspecting player with a vicious blindside hit to the head

Take 2: Raffi Torres tried to use his physicality, an attribute that has helped him make a career playing hockey, to separate an opposing player from the puck, freeing up his teammate for a scoring opportunity.

Which side is right? Much to the NHL’s nightmare: both sides. But both sides are wrong too.

There’s no doubt: Raffi Torres wasn’t trying to injure Brent Seabrook, but he was trying to hit him, and hurt him. But hurt is different than injure. You don’t want to injure him to the point he doesn’t play, you want to hurt him so bad that he plays poorly. Raffi Torres was guilty of the latter, and that’s a perfectly acceptable move in a sport where physical intimidation is an essential ingredient. Torres also tried to separate Seabrook from the puck so his now uncovered teammate could go to the net for a scoring chance. Saying Torres was being dirty or targeting Seabrook is missing the point. Of course he was, and that’s part of hockey.

But side one is right too. Raffi Torres knew Seabrook wasn’t looking, and was hitting him as hard as he could. And he hit him high, which at the very least has an increased chance of hitting the head. I’m sorry, but the Keep your head ut this argument also devolves into a “Seabrook should keep his head up” argument, which is asinine. Hockey players will have to look down to get the puck at some point during the course of a game. Asking a player to keep his head up at all times is akin to asking a writer to never use spell check. Saying “Keep your head up” is an invalid argument, especially here. Torres probably could have laid a clock-cleaninghit in a way that didn’t injure Seabrook (say a hip check). The NHL has said no more blindside hits to the head and, given the restrictions they laid out, this counts.

The days of “getting your bell rung”are long gone, and they’re never coming back. That’s a good thing, but the results leave the NHL in a precarious identity crisis. We love big hits... LOVE them. But we don’t like devestating injuries. By we I mean, management, TV executives, fans, players and pretty much everyone. I don’t envy the NHL’s position on this, because it may be no-win. It’s quite possible that wanting big hits without injuries is akin to having our cake and eating it too. If that’s the case, then the NHL & NHLPA will have to pick a direction to take the game, and it will no doubt alienate some fans. ]]>jibblescribbits@gmail.com (Jibblescribbits)AprilFri, 22 Apr 2011 02:33:17 +0000Jibblescribbits Playoff poolhttp://jibblescribbits.com/2011-articles/april/jibblescribbits-playoff-pool.html
http://jibblescribbits.com/2011-articles/april/jibblescribbits-playoff-pool.htmlThe rules are simple. There are 16 Bins to select players out of, one for every playoff team. Select one player form each bin. You must select at least 4D and 2G, along with 10F.

Points are:

1pt - Goal1pt - Assist1pt - OT goal3pts - Hat Trick

2pt - Win1pt - shutout

It's usually best to select forwards and goalies from teams you think will do well.

You're in the pool. Now go to the "Entry Form" tab. Enter your team name, e-mail address, and a password. Select a player from every bin (With at least 4 Defensmen slected and 2, no more no less, goaltenders).